Anticipatory Action (AA) refers to specific interventions taken within a clearly defined time window after a credible forecast and before the actual occurrence of a disaster. These actions are designed to address the needs that are anticipated rather than those that emerge after the disaster has unfolded.

This makes AA distinct from the broader concepts of preparedness or organizational readiness. Preparedness often spans a wide range of scenarios and focuses on general capacity building, while readiness is primarily internal, emphasizing systems and personnel. In contrast, AA is time-sensitive, scenario-specific, and oriented toward protecting lives, assets, and livelihoods before disaster strikes.

A significant and long-anticipated move, National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) has initiated the development of Nepal’s first Anticipatory Action (AA) Framework and Roadmap (2026–2030). This development marks a pivotal moment in the country's disaster risk management trajectory, shifting the focus from reactive to proactive strategies, emphasizing pre-emptive measures informed by forecasts and early warning systems.

While AA Framework itself is not legally binding instrument, its potential implications for disaster risk governance in Nepal are profound. It provides a foundational document that could influence the revision of existing legislation such as the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (2017), as well as the national disaster policy and strategic framework. It signals a progressive departure from traditional crisis response toward risk-informed, pre-emptive actions aimed at reducing the human, social, and economic losses of disasters.

Globally, anticipatory approaches are increasingly being adopted in humanitarian and development contexts, backed by strong evidence showing that early action not only saves lives but is significantly more cost-effective than post-disaster response. Nepal, a country exposed to a multitude of natural hazards, from floods and landslides to droughts and glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) which stands to gain immensely from a well-articulated AA roadmap.

However, alongside its promise lies a suite of structural, institutional, and operational challenges that must be addressed for the framework to be more than a paper tiger.

Legal and policy hurdles: Tiger without teeths?

Despite its significance, AA framework, in its current draft form, is not a legally binding instrument. This status raises concerns about its enforceability and longevity, especially given Nepal’s history of policy fragmentation and implementation gaps. However, what the framework lacks in legal power, it compensates for in strategic opportunity. It opens avenues for revisiting key disaster legislation and associated policies. For instance, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (2017), while progressive, largely concentrates on post-disaster management and offers limited operational guidance on anticipatory financing, triggers, or forecast-based actions. The framework could influence future revisions of the Act and help embed anticipatory principles into law enabling systematic, accountable, and well-financed early action at all administrative levels.

The Elephant in the room: Cash-based interventions

Perhaps one of the most debated elements of anticipatory action in Nepal is the use of cash transfers. Globally recognized as a dignified, flexible, and efficient response mechanism, cash-based interventions have gained traction in both humanitarian and anticipatory contexts.

Yet, Nepal’s national Cash Guideline, a crucial document that would legitimize and regulate such interventions has been languishing in bureaucratic limbo, stuck between ministries due to coordination challenges. Without this guideline, it remains unclear whether pre-emptive cash distributions are legally permissible, particularly when beneficiaries are not yet “impacted” but are forecasted to be.

This ambiguity creates hesitation among implementing agencies and donors alike. Additionally, concerns from oversight bodies such as the Office of the Controller General of Accounts (OCGA), which may view anticipatory spending as wasteful if the disaster does not materialize further complicate the use of a "no-regret" funding model. If the new AA framework fails to decisively address this issue, it risks being undermined at the very moment when cash injections could make the most difference.

Market intelligence: Missing piece?

While cash transfer is one of the components of AA, they are intimately linked with market dynamics. Markets often volatile and unevenly developed in disaster-prone areas determine whether cash assistance is viable or whether it exacerbates inflation and scarcity.

This is where Pre-Crisis Market Analysis (PCMA) becomes essential. PCMA helps assess whether markets can absorb the shock of increased demand during a pre-crisis window and whether critical goods and services are available. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear if the current draft of the AA roadmap mandates systematic PCMA as a prerequisite for cash programming.

Failing to embed robust market analysis could result in flawed assumptions and ineffective interventions. As the COVID-19 pandemic showed, supply chains can be severely disrupted leading to critical shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), medicines, and even basic food items. Without market intelligence, anticipatory cash may fail to meet its intended objectives or, worse, destabilize local economies.

Finance: Dreaming without fund

No framework, no matter how well-designed, can function without guaranteed financing. Yet, Nepal currently lacks a secure, pre-arranged fund dedicated to anticipatory action. While some development partners and international agencies have set up flexible funding windows, these are often temporary and contingent on external priorities.

A robust AA mechanism requires a dedicated national fund backed by contingency finance, reserve allocations, or forecast-indexed disbursement mechanisms. This would not only enhance Nepal’s financial readiness but also signal government ownership and commitment. The absence of such a fund makes anticipatory action a theoretical exercise, vulnerable to delays and dependent on unpredictable donor cycles.

Cross-border EWS: A glaring gap

Nepal’s topography and transboundary rivers present a unique challenge in forecasting and early warning. Rivers such as the Mahakali and Jodbuda have caused recurrent floods in municipalities like Dodhara Chandani. Alarmingly, more than 40% of the Mahakali watershed and 100% of Jodbuda lie within Indian territory.

This geographical reality means that critical rainfall and hydrological data necessary for early warnings are beyond Nepal’s reach. Without bilateral data-sharing agreements and real-time access to Indian meteorological information, forecast-based triggers for AA become unreliable.

Despite repeated calls from the disaster risk community, there has been limited progress in establishing Transboundary Early Warning Systems (TEWS) that are operational, transparent, and politically neutral. This remains one of the biggest structural bottlenecks to anticipatory action in western Nepal.

Implementation at the local level: MoFAGA factor

While the roadmap envisions local-level activation of triggers particularly through Local Disaster Management Committees (LDMCs), the role of the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration (MoFAGA) has been underwhelming. As the line ministry responsible for overseeing municipalities and rural municipalities, MoFAGA's involvement is vital. Their current marginal role in framing the roadmap raises serious doubts about implementation capacity, coordination, and ownership at the grassroots level. Moreover, LDMCs, already burdened with multiple mandates and limited resources, may lack the clarity and authority to execute anticipatory actions effectively unless supported through clear guidelines, training, and institutional backing.

Role of the private sector: A strategic ally or a silent observer?

Another missing voice in the development of the AA framework is the private sector. Yet, in any crisis, it is private entities especially vendors, suppliers, logistics providers, and financial institutions that shoulder a significant portion of the response. The private sector's ability to operate during crises depends heavily on having a Business Continuity Plan (BCP). During the pandemic, supply chains were paralyzed, vendors were unable to deliver essential items, and the cost of even a single face mask soared beyond the reach of the average citizen. If anticipatory actions are to include pre-positioning supplies, procuring contingency stock, or delivering cash, then mapping and onboarding vendors with tested BCPs must become an integral part of the AA roadmap.

We also believe that processes also include meaningful consultation with disaster-prone communities and their respective local government entities. Incorporating local voices ensure that the framework reflects ground realities, respects local knowledge, and strengthens ownership and implementation at the frontline of disaster risk.

Conclusion: A whole-of-society approach

Anticipatory Action is not merely a technocratic innovation, it is a paradigm shift. It requires breaking institutional silos, rethinking finance, democratizing data, and embracing uncertainty. It requires a shift in mindset from "react and repair" to "forecast and protect." To succeed, the AA Framework and Roadmap must move beyond drafting tables and expert workshops. It must be rooted in law, backed by financing, embraced by local governments, supported by reliable data, and enabled by capable markets and vendors. It must reflect a whole-of-society approach engaging communities, private sectors, academia, civil society, and government agencies alike.

Bimal Khatiwada is Oxfam's Technical Coordinator for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in Nepal.